Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion

A-S consumers are provided with ever-increasing amounts of information from more products sold through more channels and promoted in more ways, the notion of marketplace confusion is becoming Increasingly important. From the extant literature, we propose and define three types of confusion resulting from brand similarity, information load, and misleading or ambiguous information. This latter type can be regarded as an 'altered knowledge state' in which a revision of undersianding occurs. We argue that confusion should be conceptualized as a state variable and that existing confusion measures have focused solely on the behavioral and cognitive outcomes of confusion, ignoring the role of affect which is also a part of confusion. The paper is the first to discuss the consequences of confusion and elaborate on consumer confusionreducing strategies. It concludes with some research implications of the new conceptualization. INTRODUCTION As consumers are provided with ever-increasing amounts of infonnation from more products sold through more channels and promoted in more ways, the idea of confusion is becoming increasingly important and has been reported as a problem in many markets, e.g., telecommunications (e.g., Turnbull, Leek, and Ying 2000). life, health and travel insurance (Roberts 1995), and veal products (West et al. 2(X)2). Here, we make further observations regarding the extant literature in this area. First, the lack of a generally-accepted definition has contributed to very different conceptualizations of consumer confusion. Second, the existence and potential significance of an affective dimension of confusion has been neglected in previous confusion studies and definitions. Third, almost all conceptual and empirical work examining consumer confusion has disregiyded how consumers cope wilh confusion and the idea that they employ confu.sion reduction strategies. The paper begins by reviewing the extani definitions of consumer confusion and relevant literature before proposing and defining three types of confusion. We then move on to provide a conceptual model of consumer confusion which examines antecedents, potential moderators and mediators, coping strategies and con.sequences of consumer confusion. DKFINING CONSUMER CONFUSION The extant literatures suggest Ihere are three somewhat distinct antecedents of consumer confusion and have nol separated confusion asaseparate construct from its antecedents.Table I gives an overview over existing definitions which show that consumer confusion can be related to too similar, too many or unclear stimuli. The definitions view confusion as a conscious state of mind that can occur either in the preor the post-purchase situation and have not only a cognitive dimension, but also a behavioral one. We now review and discuss each type of confusion and its antecedents. According to Diamond (1981. p. 52). brand similarity confusion occurs when an imitator. "(...) so resembles the mark in appearance, sound, or meaning that a prospective purchaser is likely to be confused or misled". From our perspective, brand similarity does not necessarily cause confusion unless the consumers' are aware of the two brands (e.g.. Johnnie Walker and "Johnie Hawker" whisky). Similarity in advertisements and commercial messages can also cause this type of confusion (e.g., Kent and Allen 1994; Poiesz and Verhallen 1989). We defme brand similarity confusion as: 'a lack of understanding atid potential alteration of a consumer's choice or an incorrect brand evaluation caused hy the perceived physical similarity of products or .services'. Another logical basis for confusion creation is infonnation overload. This stems from the idea that brand proliferation causes •confusion" because of the 'bounded-rationality' of individuals in relation to the volume and diversity of the information generated by a large number of brands (Simon 1962: Miller 1956). Clearly, information overload is not only caused by a proliferation of brands, but also by an increase in the amount of'decision-relevant" information on the product in the environment surrounding the purchase of a given number of goods. The greater the number of characteristics considered, the more difficult the choice will be (or the more 'thinking cost* incurred: Shugan 1980). We define overload confusion as: 'a lack of understanding cau.'icd by the consumer being confronted with an overly information rich environment that cannot he processed in the time available to fully utiderstand. and be confident in, the purchase environment'. Some authors refer to consumer confusion from product complexity (e.g.. Cohen 1999; Cahil! 1995), ambiguous information and advertisements or false produci claims (e.g., Chryssochoidis 2000; Kangun and Polonsky 1995; Jacoby and Hoyer 1989), nontransparent pricing (e.g.. Berry and Yadav 1996) and poor product manuals (e.g.,Glasse 1992), all of which directly cause problems of understanding and are related to the concept of cognitive unclarity (see Cox 1967). This is similar lo the notion of miscomprehension which Jacoby and Hoyer (1989. p. 435) define as the situation in which "the receiver of the communication extracts meanings neither contained in nor logically derived from the communication and/or rejects meanings contained in or logically derived from the communication". Jacoby and Hoyer (1989) go on to identify confused miscomprehension, which involves the consumer extracting two or more logically incompatible meanings, then realizing it but still nol knowing which of the tneanings is correct. The importantdistinction we make is that amhiguity confusion iscauscd by information ihat is at variance with that already known by the individual, e.g.. positively or negatively framed product information that is inconsistent with aconsumer's beliefs about that product (e.g., Grewai etal. 1994: Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy 1990). For example, increasing instances of confusion occur in the health or 'slimming' food market not because there may be too many similar varieties or loo much information to absorb, but because 'credible' sources such as television programs undermine the consumer's confidence in ihe accuracy of the producer"s/retailer"s claims. From this discussion, we define ambiguity confusion as being: 'a lack of understanding during which consumers are forced to re-evaluate and revise current beliefs or assumptions about products or the purchasing environment'. The vast majority of previous research has viewed confusion predominantly as eilher behavioral or cognitive, with no suggestion that confusion includes an affective component (see Table, I). We add to this by conceptualizing the state of confusion as having three consequences, i.e., cognitive, affective or behavioral, which we 143 Advances in Consumer Research Volume 32,© 2005 144 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion suggest are positively correlated, irrespective of the antecedents confusion experienced. Apart from some of the cognitive and behavioral consequences already mentioned, we propose confused consumers are likely to experience unpleasant emotions which may include; frustration, irritation, anxiety, or even anger. Figure I shows the proposed conceptual model which we will bediscussing. Research onconsumerconfusion has mainly focused on identifying causes and effects of confusion paying little attention to its moderators and mediators. In addition to the three antecedents of confusion, moderators, mediators, confusion reduction strategies and consequences are depicted (sec Figure 1). Mediator variables, such as mood, can change while influencing the relationship between twovariables, while moderatorvariables (e.g., gender) can affect the relationship, but do not change themselves. Confusion Moderator Variables Within any exchange process, it is either the stimulus itself, created by the marketer, which is inherently confusing or is it some inability on the consumer's part to process marketing stimuli. Individual characteristics exert a moderating influence because they are often linked to the consumer's ability to rationalize and process stimuli. Age may reduce confusion through an experience framework or may increase confusion as processing competence decreases with the ageing process. Gender differences may also be related to the experience framework since females tend to have more experience in different product classes than men. Females are also reported to perceive more advertisement clutter and miscomprehension (e.g., Elliott and Speck 1998). Turnbull ct al. (2000) found ihat more females were ambiguity confused than males in the mobile phone market, suggesting that product category interrelates with gender. In cognitive psychology. tolerance for ambiguity is concerned with the degree to which people can restrain Iheir need for a perfect, clear view of the environment (e.g., Goldstein and Blackman 1977; Feather 1969). Individuals with low tolerance for ambiguity may prematurely close their information processing activities, and are rigidly impervious to new information. The way tolerance is discussed in the literature suggests that consumers go through a stage of ambiguity if they intend to clarify the choice environment and make a more considered purchase. Ambiguity confusion then occurs when the error band, and uncertainty within the infonnation, exceeds the error and uncertainty tolerance of the consumer. Pinson's (1978) work on cognitive styles distinguished between sharpeners and levelers, which are similar to Cox's (1967) clarifiers and simplifiers. Foxman et al. (1992) found sharpeners commit fewer errors than levelers when distinguishing between similar stimuli. Such consumers u.se more discriminant criteria and are less likely to be c/ccf/ra/when buying an imiiator instead of an original brand. Based on Kolb's (1976) exploratory work. Sproles and Kendall (1990) examined the relationship between learning style and decision-making styles and identified Ihree learning styles which could be particularly overioad confusion inducing; namely, (I) the passive, accepting leaming characteristic, (2) the concrete, fact-orientated characteristic, and (3) the non-adaptive, struggling leaming characteristic. Indeed, in addition to a confused by over-choice factor, Sproles and Kendall (1986) identified several decisionmaking factors which have links with confusion, namely: Perfecti{>nism, Novelty-Fashion Consciousness, and Price-Value Consciousness. We now discuss and explain some of these relationships. The petfectionistic consumer usually tries lo buy products of superior quality (Sproles 1985), This can involve a great deal of thorough and systematic search for altematives and comparisons because few products meet their demanding criteria. This thoroughness is also likely to enhance an individual's ability to distinguish between similar stimuli. Hence, we argue that a pertectionistic approach to shopping might be an effective shield against confusion caused by similarity and overioad antecedents. Novelty-fashion seekers may be particularly prone to overload and ambiguity confusion antecedents because: they tend to obtain more information from the mass media and outside their social system (Midgley and Dowling 1978): fashion is ever changing and contradictory (Mead 1993): of the uncenainty surrounding the longevity of such trends and the ambiguity of defining what is fashionable; they cannot be certain whether their products or styles will ever become widely accepted (Winakoret al. 1980). Ecotwmic/price-vatue conscious consumers want the best value for money, tend to have clear purchasing criteria and their approach to shopping is systematic, thorough and efficient (Darden and Reynolds 1971). This makes ihem less likely to experience similarity, overload or ambiguily confusion antecedents. Field independent individuals impose organization upon visual stimuli and are able to locate a sought-after component. The ability to better organize stimuli makes field independent consumers less likely to experience confusions from overload and ambiguity antecedents. Equivalence range refers to the extent to which individuals generalize about stimuli presented to them (Foxman et al. 1992; Gardner, Jackson and Messick 1960). An individual with broad equivalence (or low conceptual differentiation) considers stimuli to be ihe same, even when they are only marginally similar. Thus, broad equivalence consumers are more likely to become confused from similarity antecedents. Shopping environment relates lo the store layout, variety of products on offer, arrangement of the merchandise, music, colors, lighting, etc. It might be expected that constant product moving, combined wilh poor signage, will increase ambiguity antecedents of confusion. Overioad antecedents are likely to be exacerbated when too many products are placed on the shelves. Also, when look-alike brands are placed side-by-side to the original brand. consumers are more likely to detect that they are different brands and similarity antecedents of confusion are less likely. Confusion Mediator Variables Situational variables, such as shopping undertime constraints, can lead to rushed decision-making, shortened information-processing and inference-making time which is expected to increase confusion caused by similar stimuli (Balabanis and Craven 1997; Foxman et ai. 1990). Time constraints should increase overload confusion antecedents because of decreased processing time, but it might also reduce overload confusion in certain circumstances because, knowing the time constraints, consumers might seek to acquire and process less information (Walsh 1999). Confusion from ambiguity aniecedents can be expected to be negatively correlated with the amount of available shopping time because it allows more time to clarify what the information actually means. The social environment refers to the presence of others and their interactions with the consumer. For example, others' opinions could add too much information and creale confusion or could be in conflict wilh existing beliefs and create confusion. Expectations of a situation can also influence how much confusion is generated. For example, if consumers expect a situation to be confusing, Ihey may be more resistant to confusion causing stimuli or more prepared to deal with it by using coping strategies which might reduce their incidence of becoming confused. Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32)! 145